Rapid Responses to:

EDITORIALS: Bernard Lo HPV vaccine and adolescents' sexual activity BMJ 2006; 332: 1106-1107 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Hypocrisy and HPV vaccine

jacqueline J martindale   (20 June 2006)

Hypocrisy and HPV vaccine 20 June 2006
jacqueline J martindale, research Boulder CO 80304 USA Send response to journal: Re: Hypocrisy and HPV vaccine	I am disappointed that Lo's editorial on the HPV vaccine engendered so little discussion. HPV vaccine is safe and effctive as determined by FDA and has the long term potential to prevent about 9,000 cases of cervical cancer per year in the US, (over 3500 deaths per year). Why was its approval so opposed and why is it not being strongly promoted as a routine and sensible addition to childhood immunizations? The editorial mentions several factors (increased sexual activity, repercussions from disaffected groups etc) described as ethical concerns, which I, in contrast, would characterize as illogical accommodations with fundamentalists and not the bailiwick of physicians. For example, decades ago, Rubella immmunization was approved for use in adolescents despite the fact that it was intended to prevent disease and severe sequelae in only a subset of females who would become pregnant. Did the discussions about the vaccine center around whether it would lead to promiscuity and sexual behaviour in youngsters before their appointed time? When various erectile dysfuntion medicines were approved did the press pontificate about removing this naturally occurring control on male heterosexual promiscuity? The terrible cost in increased adultery, the spectre of elderly males becoming sexually active after their appointed time... Do we in Europe really think that initiation of heterosexual activity and promiscuity are limited "naturally" by the fear of cervical cancer? The much more substantial risk of unwanted pregnancy and common STDs (HIV, gonorhea, chlamydia) does not prevent patients of all ages from engaging in unprotected sex. But these are red herrings: a doctor's duty of care is to a patient. What benefits our female patients most is to be protected at an early age from future cervical cancer, no matter what their family, religious institution, school, or government thinks. Medicine and science in the US are being subverted to serve disguised religious goals with the encouragement and support of the administration. Scientists should be vigilant in identifying and challenging the export of specious arguments from the US. Competing interests: None declared